Uncovering the Underlying Factors of the Jouve-Cerebrals Test of Induction and the Scholastic Assessment Test-Recentered

This study aimed to investigate the relationships between the Jouve-Cerebrals Test of Induction (JCTI), and the Mathematical and Verbal subscales of the Scholastic Assessment Test-Recentered (SAT) in terms of general reasoning ability (gθ). A principal components factor analysis was conducted using a sample of 87 American students aged 16 to 23. Participants with perfect scores on the SAT were excluded to avoid ceiling effects. The analysis resulted in a two-factor solution, with the first factor representing Inductive Reasoning (I) and the second factor representing Language Development (LD). The results support the hypothesis that the SAT and JCTI are related to gθ, with the Mathematical SAT and JCTI showing strong loadings on gθ. However, the Verbal SAT had a lower loading on gθ and a significant loading on LD, suggesting its stronger association with language development. Despite the study's limitations, such as small sample size and potential selection bias, the findings contribute to understanding the relationship between the SAT, JCTI, and general reasoning ability, highlighting the need for further research using larger and more diverse samples.

JCTI, SAT, factor analysis, general reasoning ability, inductive reasoning, language development

The study of human cognitive abilities has long been a topic of interest in the field of psychometrics, with researchers seeking to understand the underlying constructs and develop reliable and valid measures of these abilities (Carroll, 1993; Jensen, 1998). One widely accepted theory in psychometrics is the hierarchical theory of intelligence, which postulates the existence of a general factor (g) that underlies all cognitive abilities and multiple specific factors representing unique abilities (Spearman, 1904; Cattell, 1987). The present study aims to investigate the relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test-Recentered (SAT) and the Jouve-Cerebrals Test of Induction (JCTI) in the context of general reasoning ability (gθ), as well as the extent to which these tests measure specific abilities, such as inductive reasoning (I) and language development (LD).

The SAT, a widely used standardized test for college admissions, measures both mathematical and verbal abilities (College Board, 2010). Previous research has established the SAT as a valid measure of general intelligence (Frey & Detterman, 2004; Lemann, 1999), with its mathematical and verbal subscales representing specific cognitive abilities. Similarly, the JCTI, which is the revision of the Test de Raisonnement Inductif (TRI), is a non-verbal test of inductive reasoning, a core component of fluid intelligence (Jouve, 2010). Inductive reasoning, as defined by Guilford (1967), involves the ability to identify patterns and generalize from specific instances, which is crucial for problem-solving and learning in various domains.

Several studies have examined the psychometric properties of college admission tests such as the SAT, and the JCTI, as well as their relationship with other cognitive ability measures (Coyle & Pillow, 2008; Jouve, 2010; Koenig et al., 2008). These studies have provided preliminary evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of these tests in assessing general reasoning ability and specific abilities such as inductive reasoning and language development. However, more research is needed to further elucidate the relationships among these tests and the constructs they purportedly measure.

In this study, a principal components factor analysis was conducted on a sample of 87 American students aged 16 to 23 to explore the relationships among the JCTI, and the Mathematical and Verbal subscales of the SAT. The first unrotated factor extracted from the analysis was interpreted as general reasoning ability (gθ), while a varimax rotation yielded a two-factor solution representing Inductive Reasoning (I) and Language Development (LD). The research hypothesis was that the SAT and JCTI would be related to general reasoning ability (gθ) and that the Verbal SAT would be more related to specific components of ability, such as language development.

The present study contributes to the literature on the psychometric properties of the SAT and JCTI by providing further evidence for their relationship with general reasoning ability (gθ) and specific abilities (I and LD). The results of the study have important implications for the use of these tests in educational and occupational settings, as well as for the development of new measures of cognitive abilities. Moreover, the study's findings offer insights into the structure of human intelligence and the roles of inductive reasoning and language development in cognitive functioning. By examining the relationships among these tests and the underlying constructs, this study seeks to enhance our understanding of the nature and measurement of cognitive abilities in the context of psychometric theories.

Method

Research Design

The study employed a correlational research design to explore the relationships among the Jouve-Cerebrals Test of Induction (JCTI), and the Mathematical and Verbal subscales of the Scholastic Assessment Test-Recentered (SAT). The rationale for this design was based on the research hypothesis that these measures were related to general reasoning ability (gθ) and that they might be differentially associated with inductive reasoning and language development.

Materials

The Jouve-Cerebrals Test of Induction (JCTI; Jouve, 2010) is a standardized measure of inductive reasoning that consists of 52 multiple-choice items. Each item presents a series of geometric figures, and participants must identify the underlying pattern and select the figure that completes the series. The JCTI has demonstrated good reliability and validity in previous research (Jouve, 2010).

The Scholastic Assessment Test-Recentered (SAT; College Board, 2010) is a widely used standardized test for college admissions in the United States, consisting of Mathematical and Verbal subscales. The Mathematical SAT assesses quantitative reasoning and problem-solving skills, while the Verbal SAT evaluates reading comprehension and verbal reasoning abilities. Both subscales have shown good reliability and validity in previous studies.

Analysis

A principal components factor analysis was conducted to examine the underlying factors of the JCTI and SAT scores. The first unrotated factor was extracted, accounting for 68.06% of the variance. After varimax rotation, a two-factorial solution emerged.

Participants and Procedure

A sample of 87 American students aged 16 to 23 (M=19; SD=2.3) was recruited for the study. Participants completed the JCTI and reported their SAT scores. Individuals with perfect scores on both the Mathematical and Verbal sections of the SAT were excluded to avoid ceiling effects.

Data collection occurred during a single session for each participant. Participants completed the JCTI online at their own pace and subsequently reported their Mathematical and Verbal SAT scores. Standardized instructions were provided for the JCTI, and participants had free access to the test to have sufficient time to finish the tasks.

Results

Statistical Analyses

A principal components factor analysis was conducted to explore the relationships among the Jouve-Cerebrals Test of Induction (JCTI), and the Mathematical and Verbal subscales of the Scholastic Assessment Test-Recentered (SAT). The sample consisted of 87 American students aged 16 to 23 (M = 19; SD = 2.3). Individuals with perfect scores on the Mathematical and Verbal sections of the SAT were excluded to avoid ceiling effects. The first unrotated factor extracted from the principal components factor analysis was interpreted as general reasoning ability (gθ). Following a varimax rotation, a two-factor solution emerged, with the first factor representing Inductive Reasoning (I) and the second factor representing Language Development (LD).

Results of the Factor Analysis

The first unrotated factor (gθ) had an eigenvalue of 2.04, accounting for 68.06% of the total variance. Table 1 displays the factor loadings for the JCTI, Mathematical SAT, and Verbal SAT on gθ. The Mathematical SAT had the highest loading (.95), followed by the JCTI reasoning index (.89) and the Verbal SAT (.60). This suggests that the first factor, gθ, represents general reasoning ability.

After varimax rotation, a two-factor solution emerged. The first factor, Inductive Reasoning (I), had an eigenvalue of 12.28 and was characterized by strong loadings from the JCTI (.91) and the Mathematical SAT (.86). The second factor, Language Development (LD), had an eigenvalue of 1.40 and displayed a significant loading for the Verbal SAT (.76).

The results of the factor analysis support the research hypothesis that the SAT and JCTI are related to general reasoning ability (gθ). The high loadings of the Mathematical SAT and JCTI on gθ indicate that these tests are strong measures of general reasoning ability. The Verbal SAT, however, had a lower loading on gθ, suggesting that it may be more related to specific components of ability, such as language development. This interpretation is further supported by the two-factor solution, where the Verbal SAT loaded significantly on the second factor, Language Development (LD).

Several limitations of the study should be considered when interpreting the results. The sample size was relatively small (N = 87), which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the exclusion of individuals with perfect scores on the SAT may have introduced selection bias and affected the results. Finally, the use of principal components factor analysis assumes that the variables included in the analysis are linearly related and normally distributed. If these assumptions do not hold, the results of the factor analysis may be misleading.

Discussion

Interpretation of Results and Relation to Previous Research

The present study aimed to explore the relationship among the JCTI, Mathematical SAT, and Verbal SAT in the context of general reasoning ability (gθ). The results supported the research hypothesis, as both the JCTI and Mathematical SAT showed strong loadings on gθ, indicating their relevance in measuring general reasoning ability. In contrast, the Verbal SAT had a lower loading on gθ, suggesting its association with specific components of ability such as language development. Overall the present findings are in line with Frey & Detterman (2004), who reported strong correlations between the SAT and tests of g: .82 with the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, .82 with the California Test of Mental Maturity, .79 with the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test, and .78 with the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test. However, Frey & Detterman (2004) did not report individual correlations or factor loadings for the two subscales of the SAT, and we therefore, cannot make comparisons for the factor loadings found in the present study. Nevertheless, they slightly differ from Brodnick and Ree (1995), who found a stronger g-loading on the SAT V (.80) than on the SAT M (.70).

The two-factor solution that emerged after varimax rotation further corroborates these findings, as the first factor, Inductive Reasoning (I), displayed strong loadings from both the JCTI and Mathematical SAT, while the second factor, Language Development (LD), was primarily characterized by the Verbal SAT. This finding aligns with the literature, which has shown that inductive reasoning and language development are distinct yet interrelated aspects of cognitive ability (Deary, et al., 2007).

Implications for Theory and Practice

The results of this study have several implications for the theoretical understanding and practical application of cognitive assessment. Firstly, the strong relationship between the JCTI, Mathematical SAT, and general reasoning ability supports the validity of these tests as measures of cognitive ability. This is particularly relevant for educational institutions, as it bolsters the utility of these tests in predicting academic success (Frey & Detterman, 2004).

Secondly, the finding that the Verbal SAT is more strongly related to language development than general reasoning ability highlights the need for a more comprehensive assessment of cognitive abilities. This could entail the inclusion of additional measures targeting specific cognitive domains, such as spatial, numerical, or logical reasoning, in order to obtain a more accurate and holistic understanding of an individual's cognitive profile (Carroll, 1993).

Directions for Future Research

There are several directions for future research that could help address the limitations of the current study and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between the SAT, JCTI, and general reasoning ability. Some possible avenues for future research include:

Increasing the sample size and diversity.

Future studies should aim to include larger and more diverse samples, encompassing individuals from various demographic backgrounds, educational levels, and cultural contexts. This would help to ensure the generalizability of the findings and allow for a more accurate understanding of the relationship between the SAT, JCTI, and general reasoning ability across different populations.

Exploring other cognitive measures.

In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of cognitive abilities, future research should consider incorporating additional measures that target specific cognitive domains, such as working memory, spatial reasoning, or processing speed. This would help to clarify the unique contributions of these cognitive abilities to the SAT and JCTI and provide a more holistic understanding of individual cognitive profiles.

Investigating potential moderators.

Future studies should explore potential moderators of the relationship between the SAT, JCTI, and general reasoning ability, such as socioeconomic status, educational background, or motivational factors. Understanding how these variables may influence the relationship between cognitive measures and general reasoning ability could provide valuable insights into the mechanisms underlying individual differences in cognitive performance.

Longitudinal research.

Longitudinal research designs could be employed to track the development of cognitive abilities and their relationship with the SAT and JCTI over time. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of the factors that contribute to individual differences in cognitive performance, and the extent to which these differences persist or change across different stages of development.

Investigating underlying cognitive processes.

Further research could explore the specific cognitive processes that underlie the observed relationships between the SAT, JCTI, and general reasoning ability. This may involve the use of cognitive neuroscience methods, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG), to identify the neural correlates of the cognitive processes involved in the performance of these tasks.

Limitations

As noted earlier, the current study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. The relatively small sample size (N = 87) may limit the generalizability of the findings, and the exclusion of individuals with perfect scores on the SAT could introduce selection bias. Furthermore, the use of principal components factor analysis assumes that the variables included in the analysis are linearly related and normally distributed, which may not be the case. These limitations highlight the need for caution when interpreting the results and generalizing them to broader populations.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that the Jouve-Cerebrals Test of Induction (JCTI), Mathematical SAT, and Verbal SAT are related to general reasoning ability (gθ), with the Mathematical SAT and JCTI being stronger measures of gθ than the Verbal SAT. The two-factor solution revealed that the Verbal SAT was more related to language development, rather than general reasoning ability. However, the limitations of the study, such as the relatively small sample size and exclusion of individuals with perfect scores on the SAT, should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings.

The study highlights the need for future research to explore other cognitive measures, potential moderators of the relationship between cognitive measures and general reasoning ability, and underlying cognitive processes involved in cognitive performance. Additionally, future studies should aim to include larger and more diverse samples and employ longitudinal research designs to track the development of cognitive abilities over time.

Overall, the findings of this study contribute to our understanding of the relationship between cognitive measures and general reasoning ability and have important implications for cognitive assessment and educational practice. However, further research is needed to confirm and extend these findings.

References

Brodnick, R.J., & Ree, M.J. (1995). A structural model of academic performance, socioeconomic status, and Spearman’s g. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 583–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055004006

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571312

Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth and Action. New York: North-Holland. 

College Board. (2010). About the SAT. Retrieved from https://www.collegeboard.org

Coyle, T. R., & Pillow, D. R. (2008). SAT and ACT predict college GPA after removing g. Intelligence, 36(6), 719–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.05.001

Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.001

Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15(6), 373–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00687.x

Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The G Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood.

Jouve, X. (2010). Test of Inductive Reasoning (TRI52) 16 - 68+ years. Retrieved from https://cogniqblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/test-of-inductive-reasoning-tri52-16-68.html

Kamphaus, R. W. (2001). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent intelligence (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Koenig, K. A., Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2008). ACT and general cognitive ability. Intelligence, 36(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.03.005

Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Raven, J. (1998). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Raz, N., Willerman, L., Ingmundson, P., & Hanlon, R. (1983). Predicting intelligence from multiple scholastic aptitude tests: A replication. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 873-877.

Spearman, C. (1904). "General intelligence," objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201-292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107